Chris Disspain / Jo Lim

A key recommendation and advice to the auDA Board in the Competition Panel’s
Final Report related to (establishing) an independent body to approve
non-objective policy rules (see Endnote below).

I note that Board minutes record that the board accepts Recommendation 2.4,
regarding registrars:
... "Registrars will perform policy compliance checks, with non-objective
policy requiring approval by an independent body accountable to auDA."

I'm particularly interested in the decsion as it relates to the independent
body.  Could you please advise:

(a) what arrangements and progress have been made to implement the Board's
decision / Panel's recommendation as it relates to the "independent body
accountable to auDA"?

(b) the extent to which auDA has accepted the Panel's advice to the auDA
Board about the "independent body" (set out in 2.4.3 and 2.4.4 below)?

(c) what processes have been put in train to select the independent body?

(c) what non-objective policy rules have been or will be developed and
published by any person or persons to act as the independent body?

Regards


Ian Johnston, Member of auDA
Consultant to SETEL, Member of auDA

--
Endnote

2.4.3 The Panel recommends that compliance checks for non-objective policy
rules be approved by an independent body before a domain name is submitted
to the registry.  Domain name applications requiring approval would be
referred to the independent body by the relevant registrar; the independent
body would not have direct contact with registrants. The Panel considers
this mechanism necessary in order to maintain the high integrity of the .au
domain space and help prevent undesirable practices such as cybersquatting.
Furthermore, there are significant economies and other benefits from such
compliance checking being undertaken by a single independent body. Notably,
the independent body would ensure fairer, more equitable and consistent
application of domain name policy rules. The body must be independent from
the registry operator(s) and registrars, as they both have a financial
interest in accepting registrations. The independent body must be adequately
resourced to enable it to perform this critical function. It is suggested
that individual auDA staff might perform the function, or alternatively auDA
could establish an independent body comprised of representatives from the
registry and registrar sectors of the industry and a representative from the
consumer sector.

2.4.4   The Panel notes that the independent body should be subject to
defined service levels (such as a minimum 2 day turn around, with an
expedited turn around possible for a higher fee). Registrants should not
experience a lower level of service than currently available for com.au
registrants, as a result of any need for independent human scrutiny. The
cost of submitting a domain name application to the independent body would
be borne by the registrar and be recoverable from registrants. This would
have cost and timing implications for domain name registration service;
however, it would protect registrars from liability in the event of a
dispute by a registrant, and would also guard against registrar-shopping by
registrants to obtain ‘soft’ policy compliance checking. The Panel notes
that if a closed 2LD chose to have only one registrar for that domain, there
would be no reason not to have that registrar carry out all policy
compliance checks, given that forum-shopping issues would not arise.